4.2 Article

Mass preparation of primary porcine hepatocytes and the design of a hybrid artificial liver module using spheroid culture for a clinical trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 799-806

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/039139880102401104

关键词

hybrid artificial liver; spheroid; polyurethane foam; porcine hepatocyte; hepatocyte preparation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To isolate a large number of porcine hepatocytes, we originally developed a mass preparation method that combined the usual collagenase perfusion method of a whole liver with a collagenase redigestion method of tissue fragments after liver perfusion. Using a pig of 10kg, collagenase perfusion only resulted in a yield of 63 +/- 78 x 10(8) total cells with a viability of 69.2 +/- 25.3 %, but our combined method had a yield of 167 +/- 31 x 10(8) total cells with a viability of 87.9 +/- 4.4 % (mean +/- SD). Also, the combined method was applied to two pigs of 70kg body weight at the same time, and isolated 387 +/- 89 x 10(8) hepatocytes with a viability of 87.7 +/- 6.9 % and a purity of 93.6 +/- 2.8 % in 17 experiments. We designed a large multi-capillary polyurethane foam (MC-PUF) packed-bed module containing 1 x 10(10) porcine hepatocytes on a clinical trial scale. The porcine hepatocytes in the module formed spherical multicellular aggregates (spheroids) of 200 - 500 mum diameter. Most hepatocytes forming spheroids were viable judged by fluorescein diacetate and ethidium bromide staining. The activities of ammonia removal, albumin secretion and oxygen consumption of the large MC-PUF module were the same as for a small MC-PUF module containing 2 x 10(8) porcine hepatocytes, and were maintained for at least 9 days of culture. These results show that a large MC-PUF module is successfully scaled up 50 times. In conclusion, we succeeded in developing a mass preparation method of porcine hepatocytes and a large hybrid artificial liver module on a clinical trial scale.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据